Posts Tagged ‘journalism’

First of all, if the 2nd Amendment is a “limited” right, then ALL of our other constitutionally guaranteed rights are also “limited.” I have to love it that the same people who want to “limit” the 2nd Amendment rabidly demand that there be no limits whatsoever to “the right to vote,” including not only convicted felons but now even also to illegal immigrants. If you are even considering “limiting” the 2nd Amendment and you are not for voter ID laws, then you are simply somebody to disregard as an ideologue. The fact of the matter is that “the right to vote” is an obviously dangerous thing, unless you happen to believe that the rise of the Nazi Party that was ELECTED is not a dangerous thing. In another example, recently the Palestinians elected a TERRORIST GROUP to power. Further, since we’re largely talking about illegal immigrants from Mexico when we discuss voter ID, let’s not forget the fact that in Mexico, if you do not have a voter ID, YOU DO NOT GET TO VOTE.

Now, one of the reasons I mention “illegal immigrants” is the fact that the shooter – Nikolas Cruz – IS HISPANIC. Liberals snarl that if we were disarmed from having “assault weapons” he wouldn’t have been able to pull this off. But how about this one: if we didn’t have HISPANICS he wouldn’t have been able to pull this off, either. If you’re going to ban the one, let’s ban the other. Otherwise you might start getting reasonable and realize that we have tens of millions of these weapons in the hands of decent, law-abiding people and just maybe we shouldn’t target all of them because of the actions of one miserable whackjob. But otherwise, let’s turn as much rage and hate on Hispanics for being Hispanic as we do on “assault weapons” for being “assault weapons.” Because, news flash, fools, that rifle Cruz used did NOT squeeze its own trigger. Cruz squeezed it and kept squeezing it.

What’s really funny – in the ironic sense of moral idiots who refuse to learn from history – is that we’ve already TRIED this and IT DID NOT DO A DAMN THING. Democrats banned what they created the term “assault weapons” (to mimic the military term assault rifle referring to a weapon capable of full as well as semi-automatic fire in order to artificially create a false equivalence between the two) and it had no impact on crime or violence. None. That’s why we don’t have it anymore. It lapsed, having been nothing more than a deprivation of the rights of millions of Americans.

What liberals want is to create and then keep taking us down a slippery slope, such that if the “assault weapons” ban (which is already a proven failure) fails again, well, we just need to keep banning more stuff, like handguns.

For those liberals in favor of applying limits to the 2nd Amendment, I simply ask you, what can I ban that YOU believe is a critical and fundamental right, given that you want to take away my right to defend myself and my family?

Here’s another one: the way the left wants to blame gun owners and people who advocate for the 2nd Amendment every time a gun is used to kill someone, please to explain why the hell we can’t demonize YOU in any jurisdiction with tough gun laws when a victim is first rendered defenseless and then a vicious predator comes in and attacks?

How about this little factoid from USA Today:

Killers continue targeting locations where guns are not allowed. Ninety-eight percent of public mass shootings in this country occur in gun-free zones — the Florida school being one of them.

How about if we start screaming that we need to purge the world of all proponents of gun-free zones so that we can be SAFE??? We need to BAN gun-free zones and criminally prosecute anybody who supports them.

Here’s another fact:

that 81% of police officers support arming teachers and principals, so that the real first responders — the potential victims — can protect the children.

Let’s BAN anybody who doesn’t believe in arming guards and teachers and even volunteer parents who are willing to pass background checks and have required training so we can protect our children on our schools.

It is a fact proven in every single situation we have faced that these mass shootings stop the moment a good guy with a gun shows up. A whopping majority of the time the killers kill themselves. Which kind of proves that guns aren’t evil; guns are tools. People are evil. And so if you’re going to start banning, ban people.

But, oh wait, liberals are already doing that. It’s called “abortion” and liberals have already banned 60 million people from having a right to live.

We talk about DACA and these poor, poor DACA kids who were brought here through no fault of their own and that means they should have a right to live here. Okay, fine. As long as you realize that 60 million times now liberals have ignored the very logic of their own hypocritical belief and kill innocent human beings who were brought into the world through no fault of their own.

Nikolas Cruz exercised his “right to choose” and his “right to his own body” and retroactively aborted 17 people. Abortion is death. And we now have a culture of death. And we ought to ban everybody who has in any way, shape or form contributed to this evil zeitgeist.

Fifty years ago there were more guns per capita in American hands than there are today. Fifty years ago we also had far fewer anti-gun laws and regulations and restrictions than we have today. THE KILLINGS WE ARE SEEING TODAY ARE NOT BECAUSE OF GUNS and anyone who isn’t a fool immediately realizes that something ELSE has changed. THE KILLINGS WE ARE SEEING TODAY ARE DUE TO GODLESSNESS.

Fifty years ago we believed in God and taught divine morality and therefore we believed in the soul and the sanctity of human life. We rejected “abortion morality” and the belief that innocent human beings could be exterminated like bugs. We are now talking about every single liberal being ten times more guilty of mass murder than the damn NAZIS.

And I’ll just say that if you believe in abortion and you believe in gun control, I’ll just quote your ideological buddy Adolf Hitler who said, “To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.” Along with Stalin. Along with Mao. Along with Castro and Pol Pot and Kim Jong-un. Because you are following the same damn pathway to hell on earth and somebody needs to ban your vile ass fast.

We have ALWAYS been a gun-culture in America because we have always been a FREE society and the most basic tenet of true freedom is to be allowed to have the damn right and freedom to protect yourself and what is yours from anyone who would try to take it. There are people, socialists, communists, atheists (who don’t believe in the soul and therefore cannot have any doctrine of free will given that they are forced to believe we are meat puppets who think the way we do simply because the molecules in our brains randomly happened to arrange themselves a certain way), liberals and Democrats, who do not believe in freedom. And these people who deny our freedom need to be banned.

Atheism and the communism atheism ultimately logically entails is without any question whatsoever THE most murderous worldview of any that has ever contaminated the human species. And atheism needs to be banned and atheists and communists alike need to be banned.

Let me simply point out that generals have always known that most human beings and most soldiers simply will not kill other human beings without a great deal of conditioning. And the primary barrier to killing has always been religious faith and the belief that this “enemy” is in fact a human being created in God’s image just like me. Amazingly, one small change was enough to dramatically increase American soldiers’ willingness to aim a rifle at an enemy and pull the trigger. During the Vietnam War, human-shaped sillouhettes were introduced. And soldiers became more conditioned to kill.

Today, our secular humanist atheism has spawned savage, vicious, vile video games that are to the human-shaped sillouhette what the atomic bomb is to a spear. Atheism and the ramifications of atheism has spawned this culture of death that we are now haunted by FAR more than we are haunted by guns that by themselves have never once so much as harmed anybody because it takes hate to pull the trigger.

And they need to have their asses BANNED because you yourself are participating in their murders if you DON’T ban them.

If we can limit constitutional rights and specifically limit certain components of those rights, we can certainly isolate out and limit atheism from the panoply of religious rights and ban atheism and the ugly worldview of hate and meaningless, murderous rampages straight to the hell it came from. So let’s do it.

But don’t believe me. Believe your fellow liberal traveler, CBS vice president and senior legal counsel Hayley Geftman-Gold who posted after an atheist gunned down 500 mostly conservative and Christian country music fans in Las Vegas:

We need to BAN liberal bias in our newsrooms and if they won’t ban these “reporters” and these “journalists” who are propagandists, we need to ban the entire publication. BAN IT. Because if you can ban the 2nd Amendment, you can ban the media. And damn you if you don’t, you hypocrites.

This punk turd, Nikolas Cruz, should never have been allowed to have any kind of gun. That is a fact that nobody is arguing. If you have something from the NRA saying that Nikolas Cruz should have had his guns, then let’s see it. This isn’t about guns. This is about a massive failure in a system that is broken in a whole bunch of ways. This pathetic loser showed “every red flag,” according to the New York Times. The turd posted a YouTube video of himself saying he wished to be a professional school shooter. He had obvious mental health issues. You’ve got government law enforcement agencies that failed; you’ve got government social services agencies that failed. The FBI was informed of his behavior but did nothing because they had been commissioned by Obama and by the Democrat Party machine to invest all of their resources into a witch-hunt against Donald Trump and the 2016 presidential election and the democratic will of the people itself.

But what does the left want? Amazingly, the left wants MORE power and MORE control in the very government that was just proven to be so damn broken!!!

The definition of insanity is giving the same government that continuously fails more power to fail even more while simultaneously stripping people of their God-given right to defend themselves against that very government, let alone all the horrible people that Democrats keep demanding we let out of our prisons to prey upon us again and again.

Feinstein explained that the Watch Lists are populated with “information derived from intelligence and law enforcement sources…” and are maintained by the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center. She further revealed that largest list, the Terrorist Screening Database, contains over one-million records but less than 5,000 Americans included on that list. Or, as Sen. Feinstein repeatedly said, Americans make up less than one-half of one percent of the Terrorist Screening Database.

And so anyone who is not in favor of massively banning immigrants is to be viewed as personally responsible for the mass shootings because we have lost any meaningful way to detect our monsters due to the massive number of immigrants whom Democrats rabidly protect.

How the hell are the FBI agents – you know, the ones who AREN’T wrapped up in political investigations started by Democrat ideologues and obviously rabid partisan ideologues within the FBI itself – supposed to examine a Nikolas Cruz when they’ve got more than a million potential terrorists invited into our country by the Democrat Party???

These fools who think like this need to be banned something fierce.

Here’s yet another example of Democrats being people who we need to ban: the death penalty which they rabidly oppose and play every single shenanigan there is to undermine it when they can’t ban it. Nikolas Cruz actually is willing to plead guilty to his crime. Why? To avoid the death penalty. Newsflash: the death penalty IS a deterrent, you fools. Especially if it is done swiftly and with certainty where we put these rabid human beings down like the rabid animals they are as soon after the crime as is humanly possible.

Let me return to Mexico – you know, the country with strict voter ID laws – that also allows families to have a process to commit a mentally unstable person against that person’s will. It’s amazing to me how liberals want more and more millions of Mexicans flooding into America but refuse to allow any of the actual good things that the country that sends them here actually follows.

We need to ban people who believe that anyone who is acting or posting crazy shouldn’t be taken off the streets and examined and treated until they are no longer a threat.

My God, I think of a family that is dear to me, who suffered with a young man who was schizophrenic. The young man KNEW he needed help and tried to get it, but there was only one crack to fall through after another. He used drugs like virtually all mentally ill people who are wandering around to try to self-medicate the pain, but he couldn’t get arrested literally to save his life even when police found all the drugs and drug paraphernalia on him. Because, after all, the left employs this “logic”

We are now indoctrinating and addicting an entire generation of young people into the use of mind altering substances, and I am simply going to guarantee you that the problems plaguing our society are going to increase beyond stratospherically.

The Democrat-created drug culture WILL be a nightmare. You watch and enjoy the horror show first on the news, then in your town, then in your home.

But no liberal, no Democrat, is ever going to accept responsibility for the hell they caused.

Which is why we need to ban the damn Democrat Party fast. The Democrat Party is the party of slavery and the party that fought a vicious war to continue the institution of slavery. It has been the party of abject evil ever since. And it needs to be banned something fierce.

If we’re going to start banning, then for God’s sake let’s start banning what truly needs to be banned.

Finally, we have laws against what Nikolas Cruz did. Did you know that? It is ILLEGAL to go to a school and start shooting people! But he did it anyone. Why on earth does anybody believe that criminals and psychopaths won’t still get guns if some dumbass makes it “illegal”?

So this morning I’m looking through the crappy bird-cage-liner that passes itself off as the newspaper of record on the West Coast, just as I’ve been looking through the same bird-cage-liner every day since Trump announced his candidacy, let alone since he was elected. And it’s just rabidly unhinged bias day after day after day.

Meanwhile, the same Democrat establishment and the same voters who literally swarmed Obama with fanatic worship when he was elected – who hysterically told anyone who didn’t take the Mark of the Obama that you were a racist, a hater, a traitor, fill in your own blank – rose up in a spirit of rabid, violent hatred against the President of the United States even before he took office.

Does democracy require journalists and educators to strive for political balance? I’m hardly alone in thinking the answer is “yes.” But it also requires them to present the facts as they understand them — and when it is not possible to be factual and balanced at the same time, democratic institutions risk collapse.

Consider the problem abstractly. Democracy X is dominated by two parties, Y and Z. Party Y is committed to the truth of propositions A, B and C, while Party Z is committed to the falsity of A, B and C. Slowly the evidence mounts: A, B and C look very likely to be false. Observers in the media and experts in the education system begin to see this, but the evidence isn’t quite plain enough for non-experts, especially if those non-experts are aligned with Party Y and already committed to A, B and C.

Both psychological research and commonsense observation of the recent political situation (I think you’ll agree with this, whatever side you’re on) demonstrate the great human capacity to rationalize and justify what you want to believe. The evidence against A can be very substantial — compelling, even, from a neutral point of view — without convincing people who are emotionally invested in the truth of A.

The journalists and educators who live in X now face a dilemma. They can present both sides in a balanced way, or they can call the facts as they see them. Either choice threatens the basic institutions of democracy.

If they present balanced cases for and against A, B and C, they give equal time to the false and the true. They create the misleading impression that the matter is still in doubt, that opinion is divided, that it’s equally reasonable to believe either side. They thereby undermine and discredit their own assessment that A, B and C are very likely to be false. This is dangerous, since democracy depends on a well-educated, informed voting public, aware of the relevant facts.

In the long term, journalists and educators will likely turn against balance, because they care intensely about the facts in question and don’t wish to pretend that the evidence is unclear. They understand that they cannot routinely promote false equivalencies while retaining their integrity.

Schwittzoebel blathers on a little longer and then finally concludes,

This is all general and oversimplified. But it’s clear in the abstract and in the real world that knowledgeable people can be forced by the evidence to disproportionately favor one political party over another, creating a vicious cycle of bias and partisan alignment.

We might be entering this cycle in the United States. To fight against it, we must allow journalists, educators and researchers to speak freely. Political leaders and their supporters must not rush to the conclusion that experts who disagree with them — even systematically — are their enemies.

The first thing you need to understand is that, in the “abstract” presentation that he provides, he this “academic” firmly sides with the Democratic Party. The Republican Party is “abstractly” Party Y – you know, the one that has every single one of its facts wrong because it’s dominated by stupid, ignorant, emotional people – whereas his Party Z is the Enlightened Party that knows all and is struggling to accommodate all of these stupid, vacuous, ignorant, clueless unwashed masses.

In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.

What about the academics? Yeah, he fails to mention the same rabid bias in that group, also.

Almost 100 percent of the 2016 presidential political donations made by top liberal arts professors went to Democratic candidates, with only one professor giving to a Republican candidate.

Forty-seven professors at the top 50 liberal arts colleges in the country, as ranked by U.S. News & World Report, have given to presidential campaigns, according to donations recorded in the third quarter by the Federal Election Commission and aggregated by Campus Reform, a conservative watchdog of higher education.

Of those 47 professors, Hamilton College History Professor Robert Paquette was the only one to give to a Republican — donating $150 to Carly Fiorina’s campaign.

The 46 other professors gave $20,875 to Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton and $8,417 to Vermont Sen. Bernard Sanders, the report said.

“I do believe these numbers give an accurate representation of the political leanings of faculty on most college campuses, especially allegedly elite liberal arts colleges like Hamilton College,” Mr. Paquette told Campus Reform. Mr. Paquette told the organization he was the “only out-of-closet conservative in a faculty of 200.”

The truly frightening thing about Schwitzgebel’s “analysis” is that, for Schwitzgebel, this rabidly lopsided bias probably isn’t even a problem. After all, he is telling us that journalists and academics HAVE to ultimately choose sides and “present facts as they understand them.” They have to be able “to speak freely.”

And so they have a RIGHT and even a DUTY to be in Nazi goose-stepping fascist synchronized march toward one political ideology.

And if you are NOT in these elite classes of the Übermensch, you have the right to shut up and mindlessly follow. Because, that is all they believe you are capable of doing.

In order for Schwitzgebel to have his utopian “democracy” where we have “a well-educated, informed voting public, aware of the relevant facts,” we have only tow alternatives: the first is to put everyone who supports Party Y in a reeducation camp until they understand that the only acceptable reality is to accept the one presented by the journalists and the academics; and the second is to surgically “correct” the members of Party Y with a full frontal lobotomy and fit them with a drool-collecting prosthetic so that they can be led to the way, the truth and the life according to “the facts” as journalists and academics understand them.

two things make a philosopher great: quality of argument and creative vigor

I mean, gee whiz, Eric, “quality of argument”? HOW ABOUT ANY DAMN ARGUMENT AT ALL??? “Creative vigor”? I mean, what the hell, when nearly one-hundred percent of your ilk are all marching in lock-step for one side. I mean, oh yeah, there’s just ALL KINDS of “creativity” going on in your ivy tower and your faculty lounge, isn’t there???

Eric, you are true to your liberal-progressive kind: you are a devout, abject moral hypocrite of the very lowest order.

Allow me to post every single page of the Los Angles Times main section to prove a point:

There they are: a photograph of every single page of the main section of the Los Angles times for Monday, January 30, 2017

Let me go through every single headline and subtitle of each article in the main page section of the newspaper of record for the West Coast:

How Trump created chaos at the airports: Not only was his order on refugees unfair and inhumane, but they way it was carried out was a disaster.

Leader of the free world [on Angela Merkel, celebrating her leftist immigration policies in contrast to Trump’s]

A cruel, illegal executive order

It’s been this way ever since EVER, for the record.

There is not ONE example of objective, impartial journalism in the entire newspaper. Rather, it is blatantly obvious that the policy of the Los Angeles Times is of echoing and amplifying ALL the criticisms from the unhinged left, while steadfastly refusing to so much as allow for mention ANYTHING that Trump may have done that could even conceivably be good.

Every single article is negative and unrelentingly critical. For example, the “Police wary of new duty article” subtitled, “Trump’s order to use local units to enforce immigration laws elicits resistance by some L.A. officers” and then titled as it continues “New duties would ‘create a wedge'”: how likely is it that there are not “some L.A. officers” who are FOR this executive order and welcome it as good policy??? But the “some officers” who take the leftist side are the ONLY ones who get to count. And to the extent that there is any nuance in the article itself, you don’t see anything but unrelenting anger and criticism in the headlines and subtitles that are what most people glance at as they pick up this biased piece of leftist propaganda.

And again, in the “BONDS MADE CLOSER” story: do you think it’s possible that someone with bad intentions might have been blocked? But no, it’s going to be framed as sobbing mothers and hysterical children. And that’s all that matters. Which amounts to an entirely emotionalism-laded framing of this policy from a biased, slanted perspective while our philosophy professor Eric Schwitzgebe lambasts US as the “emotional” ones.

The media and academia pull this tactic all the damn time: let’s search and search and search until we can find some sympathetic victim that suits our narrative, and then follow the Saul Alinsky strategy: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” And it is ALWAYS emotional and it is ALWAYS leftist. But it’s marvelous when they do what they demonize us for doing. Because to be a liberal progressive is to be an abject moral hypocrite incapable of shame or virtue or integrity or decency or honesty.

The “Trump’s powerful political duo” article where Trump advisors want to “reshape the country” forces me to remember when Obama said he was only days away from “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” But THAT was wonderful and greeted with cheers and adoration whereas what Trump is doing is utterly evil because somebody who isn’t a beloved liberal ideologue now wants to “reshape the country.”

No, or to put it more accurately, HELL no: rather, to put it in Eric’s language, “they present the facts as they understand them.” Or at least “the facts” that they CHOOSE in their BIAS to present.

“Thousands of protesters” are framed as HEROES. Remember when the Tea Party was demonstrating? Not ONE SINGLE arrest was EVER made of a tea party supporter – and in fact the ONLY arrests were of unhinged liberal progressives whose fascist souls were filled with hate and rage at the thought that free people had the freedom to demonstrate. But the mainstream media demonized us like we were burning and looting and raping and rioting. But then we had first the vile protests of the Occupy Movement where we had acts of terrorism, acts of rape, acts of mass vandalism; then we had Black Lives Matter chanting “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” and “What do we want?” Dead cops!” When do we want it?” “NOW!” which corresponded to an orgy of execution-style slayings of police officers. And now we’ve got Democrats charged with RIOTING the day Donald Trump was inaugurated. And the way the mainstream media depicts it it’s all so, so wonderful.

Such as when Democrats were using Nazi-style Brownshirt tactics to physically beat and terrorize Donald Trump supporters for the crime of participating in the 1st Amendment of our Constitution (see my articles documenting this here and here and here).

And you’re actually worried that the mainstream media that ignored the rise of the Nazi Party from within the Democrat Party isn’t being given enough respect, Eric???

Damn near very single story the mainstream media does emerges from the Saul Alinsky tactic: Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. DAMN NEAR EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Of course, you have to realize that at NO TIME EVER in the last eight years did ANY Secret Service agent EVER ONCE obstruct ANY reporter’s view of the MLK bust: or else we can safely assume that these unbiased purveyors of fact and truth would have immediately reported that Barack Obama had ordered the MLK bust removed.

Amazingly, Zeke Miller STILL has a job in spite of the fact that he just proved that Time Magazine is a nest of poisonous, fanged, venomous vipers who are NOTHING but biased propagandists trying to slander and pervert the truth to suit their ideology and political narrative to harm and undermine Donald Trump and every single voter who elected him president.

You go back and look over the disgrace that journalists made of themselves as Donald Trump kept proving that all the crap they were “reporting” was “FAKE NEWS” from a biased perspective: Donald Trump couldn’t win the primary because he was too polarizing and too divisive; Donald Trump could never defeat Hillary Clinton because he was too polarizing and too divisive; Donald Trump was out of contention in all the swing states because he was too polarizing and too divisive. And all our biased polls prove our foreordained biased conclusion justifying our biased narrative.

THIS is what it means to be a “journalist” today. THIS is what it means to be an “academic” today. And if you’re not one of these propagandists, good luck in finding a damn job with them or keeping a job if you already managed to sneak in.

If you are a “journalist” or an “academic” today, YOU ARE THE LIVING EMBODIMENT OF DISHONESTY AND DISGRACE.

On the academic side, what we see is outright psycho-terror for professors whose expertise and scientific analysis tell them that evolution as a “fact” is a load of crap; we see an avalanche in academia of intolerable denials of tenure, denials of promotion, denials of contract renewals, denials of earned degrees, denials of admission into graduate programs”, and other rabid discrimination against a substantial minority of credentialed scientists that disagrees with the prevailing dogmatism of the myth of evolution.

This is “science” to an evolutionist. Consider the words from Nobel Laureate Dr. George Wald who concedes a great deal in this quote: “One only has to concede the magnitude of the task to concede the possibility of the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” Wald talks about billions of years and then concludes, “Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain.”

You have discredited yourselves. Nobody ought to listen to you who wants the truth or even anything vaguely resembling the truth. Your “facts” “as you understand them” are carefully selected lies that pimp a false narrative. You’ve done it over and over and over again.

WHERE was your outrage, Mr. Schwittzoebel, when Obama was imposing every manner of outrageous, polarizing executive orders and policies and spitting in the eyes of increasingly outraged and alienated Americans???

I wrote this prediction back in 2012:

Obama’s strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit. Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist – is UN-American.

What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States. And when we get a hard-core right wing president the way Obama has been a hard-core left wing president, Obama and the Democrat Party and all of those who voted for Obama and the Democrat Party will be entirely to blame for that president and his extremist actions. You mark my words. Because what goes around comes around, and if a Democrat can set aside the law the way Obama has now repeatedly done, well, guess who’s going to be stomping on your necks under your own president’s prior justification??? Conservatives are rising up in a spirit of righteous outrage. You have repeatedly slapped us in the face through your messiah Obama, and the time is coming when we’re going to punch you hard in the nose and then keep on punching. And when that day comes, liberals, look to yourselves for blame. — My words on June 18, 2012

If you want to get even with the people most responsible for the rise of Donald Trump, then hunt every Democrat who voted for Barack Obama down with dogs and burn them alive. Because Donald Trump was the result of eight years of FASCISM.

So we get to Trump’s entirely LAWFUL order to limit immigrants and refugees from seven countries that were actually even on Obama’s list as dangerous sponsors of terrorism. For eight years, Obama gave us lawless executive orders that he himself had previously labeled as the acts of a king, an emperor, arguing that they were unconstitutional and anti-democratic before then issuing them anyway. And Democrats smiled and laughed at the abandonment of our Constitution and the tossing out of our laws.

DON’T complain, Democrat: YOU INVITED THIS. YOU DEMANDED THIS. YOU GOT WHAT YOU GAVE US.

Further, these seven countries are notorious abusers of human rights against Christian minorities, against women, against homosexuals. But that’s perfectly okay, isn’t it???

Obama has been nothing short of a total disaster for the Democratic Party. He lost the White House. He lost the House. He lost the Senate. He lost a giant number of governorships. He lost a giant number of state houses. He’s a disgrace. And yet he is the liberal progressives’ god and the only god with whom they will have to do.

If Democrats had ANY virtue or integrity whatsoever, they would say, “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, Trump won.” They would say, “We Democrats can go for a ride with Donald Trump, but we gotta sit in back.”

The fact that you won’t abide by the rules of your own game that you created is the biggest crisis facing America today.

Barack Hussein Obama is proclaiming his economic miracle when the truth is anything BUT.

Fewer and fewer Americans are working or even bothering to TRY to work. Many have been crushed into despair by Barack Obama’s shockingly poor economy. But you wouldn’t know it watching or reading the mainstream media.

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS SUNDAY: We could continue this conversation and I’m sure we will, but let’s turn to the economy and some really disappointing numbers on the economy this week. Here they are. Only 126,000 jobs were added in March. That’s the weakest hiring in 15 months. Labor force participation dropped to 62.7 percent, matching the lowest since 1978. And the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta estimates first quarter growth at zero, zero percent, flat. George, what’s going on here?

GEORGE WILL, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, for the second year in a row they’ve blamed poor quarterly growth on insufficient global warming, that is on winter, on an unusually cold winter. Let your mind go back to November last year. There was job creation of 321,000 jobs and the administration said this is a miraculous achievement and a harbinger of things to come. It wasn’t a harbinger and it wasn’t miraculous. During the Reagan recovery there were 23 months of job creation over 300,000. Reagan had a month of job creation of 1 million and this was at a time when there were 75 million fewer Americans. Now, never mind zero growth. We are now being told really that two percent growth may be the new normal. If so, that’s a disaster because every day, today, yesterday, tomorrow, every day between now and 2030, 10,000 more baby boomers become eligible for Social Security and Medicare. If we have two percent growth, the crisis of the welfare state, the crisis of the private sector being able to throw off the revenues, to pay the bills for the promises we’ve made to ourselves becomes impossible.

WALLACE: Just tell again that the labor force participation stat that you have, if it were what it was at the beginning of the Obama administration.

WILL: If the workforce participation rate today were as high as it was on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated, the unemployment rate in this country would be 9.7 percent, we wouldn’t be complaining about the bad recovery because we wouldn’t call it a recovery.

Do you hear that? Our REAL unemployment rate is ten percent at BEST. And it’s actually quite a bit higher considering the fact that nearly 100 million working-age Americans in a nation consisting in 318 million total Americans DO NOT HAVE A JOB:

(CNSNews.com) – The number of Americans 16 years and older who did not participate in the labor force–meaning they neither had a job nor actively sought one in the last four weeks–rose from 92,898,000 in February to 93,175,000 in March, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

That is the first time the number of Americans out of the labor force has exceeded 93 million.

Also from February to March, the labor force participation rate dropped from 62.8 percent to 62.7 percent, matching a 37-year low.

Five times in the last twelve months, the participation rate has been as low as 62.8 percent; but March’s 62.7 percent, which matches the participation rate seen in September and December of 2014, is the lowest since February of 1978.

BLS employment statistics are based on the civilian noninstitutional population, which consists of all people 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution such as a prison, mental hospital or nursing home.

In March, the civilian noninstitutional population was 250,080,000 according to BLS. Of that 250,080,000, 156,906,000 — or 62.7 percent — participated in the labor force, meaning they either had or job or had actively sought one in the last four weeks.

The lower the labor participation rate is, the smaller the percentage of Americans who are working.

As I pointed out in my article from May of 2012, Obama has driven the labor participation rate number down, and down, and down until he’s bottomed out at CARTER’S FAILED PRESIDENCY.

But it’s really even WORSE than Jimmy Carter, because we had a different way of life when Carter was president and eroding America with his fool liberalism.

We had a low labor participation rate in the 1950s because we had a very different culture and social structure, where people got married – you know, to someone of the opposite sex – and the husband tended to work while the wife stayed at home and managed the household and the children. So you had a labor participation rate in the 50 percentile because half the adult population wasn’t in the official “workforce” even though she worked her butt off preparing a special place called “home” for her family.

Democrats pissed all over that way of life. It’s gone, now.

Now, if you’re a woman, you’d damn well better have testicles, or at least have a job the way men used to have. You need to either kill your babies in Democrats’ abortion mills or else abandon them so you can be a wage-slave so you can work harder and harder for less and less pay under a lying Obama who promised one thing but delivered the opposite. For example, Obama promised more “economic equality,” but what did this lying hypocrite weasel from the political party of lying hypocrite weasels deliver? the WORST economic INequality in American history, is all. Obama promised you a higher standard of living, but what did he actually deliver? Wage stagnation and falling incomes the like we’ve never seen before, that’s what.

And yet Barack Obama continues to preach himself as the solution to the very problems he’s made the worst they’ve ever been. And the media reports his blathering nonsense like he shouldn’t be laughed out of every single room he walks into.

Now that we have men and women nearly equally participating in the economy, our labor participation rate ought to be ninety-five percent to have the unemployment rate Obama is deceitfully boasting about. Because after, all, if the unemployment rate is 5.5% the way Obama says it is, shouldn’t that mean that 94.5% of working-age Americans are, you know, WORKING???

We are being lied to – and insanely we’re being lied to by something that is calling itself “a free press” – worse than any generation or nation has EVER been lied to before. And more Americans are foolishly believing their propaganda than, say, Soviet citizens who knew damn well they were being lied to like the sheep that liberal big government socialism had forced them to become.

If Fox News reports the truth, don’t worry; because about a thousand-and-one other mainstream media outlets will drown it out with gobbledygook.

Just imagine for a moment if such a magazine had tried to write a story about the opposite point of view – you know, the so-called “right wing” version, of the same story: imagine if a magazine had sent a reporter out to write a story about the “fact” that every woman who reported a rape was in fact a damn liar. And they based their entire story on the claims of one man who turned out to be so full of lies it was beyond unreal, but up and down the line no one in the chain from “journalist” to “editor-in-chief” ever said something like, “Hey, wait a minute, this story is a load of crap!”

But it’s okay. It was liberal Rolling Stone and they published reliable liberal drivel, just like the “Hands up, Don’t shoot!” thing was liberal drivel and the hysterical and rabid garbage that was fabricated about the “anti-gay” law in Indiana was liberal drivel. Did it matter that the law didn’t even MENTION gay marriage??? Of course not. Because the ends justify the means and it’s literally okay to lie if you’re a liberal journalist and your lie advances a liberal narrative. And so there’s nothing to see here, folks. We issued a stern “tsk-tsk” and we’re moving on so they can continue doing the same thing tomorrow and the next day and the day after that. And all the rest of us liars a.k.a. “journalists” can do the same thing with all our “stories,” too.

We just found out that Harry Reid, as Senate Majority Leader, directly slandered the presidential candidate of the opposing Republican Party with what we all now know was a LIE. What outcry would there have been had the Senate Minority Leader at the time (Republican Mitch McConnell) had so lied and so slandered Barack Obama and claimed that it was a fact that Obama had broken the law and had not paid any taxes in ten years??? What would the outcry for his resignation had been? But Harry Reid is smug about his lies because they were successful and if you are a Democrat lies are all you have and all you ever will have. So it’s okay and the media aren’t screaming for anybody’s hide but the next Republican scapegoat such as the governor of Indiana.

So our unemployment rate is 5.5% and Obama is an economic wizard even though so many fewer Americans are actually working than when George W. Bush was president it’s laughable.

But it’s okay for the liberal media to lie. Because their fellow socialist propaganda mills before them always lied, too.

Because we live in the age of “the mystery of lawlessness” where the righteous are stunned into helpless silence as evil metastasizes and ascendant wickedness triumphs all around them – and we live in an age of deception just before the Antichrist comes and the Democrat Party leads us to accept the big-government mark of the beast so the government can finally and completely seize control over the economy as they have always wanted.

I now understand something – thanks to Barack Obama’s epic fail – that I never understood before about the coming Antichrist. Namely, the Antichrist won’t be some masterful genius; rather, he will be a masterful liar who will be able to create illusions of success even as he’s wildly failing; he will be able to scapegoat other groups and blame them for why things keep getting worse, rather than better; he will be a liar and a deceiver and a slanderer without shame, without honor, without integrity and without virtue. In other words, he will be just like Barack Obama who is the coming Antichrist’s Useful Idiot-in-Chief. Except he’ll be an even more skilled liar and an even more masterful slanderer.

And the media, of course, will help the coming Antichrist with massive propaganda. Just as they are helping Obama spread his lies and his slanders now.

You’ve got to just stand back and marvel at the STUNNING hypocrisy and dishonest and disgraceful deceit that are at the core of every so-called “liberal” and at the heart of every Democrat and at the heart of their false messiah Barack Hussein Obama.

How dare we publish material that would offend Muslims, they argue in the name of the multicultural pluralism that they gave birth to.

Okay, fine. Every atheist who publicly claims there is no God ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Every liberal who espouses the radical secular humanist invention of a “separation of church and state” to annihilate their opponents’ religious influence ought to be publicly demonized.

But of course not. Christianity is of course different and ought to be attacked and demonized because unlike other groups that all come from the totalitarian left we don’t resort to hate and violence. I guess ultimately it’s Jesus’ fault for teaching His disciples to turn the other cheek and it’s the Holy Spirit’s fault for instilling in us the fruits of the Spirit rather than the hate of the left.

The French satirical paper that was attacked in France was a LEFT-WING magazine that generally attacked the political RIGHT, attacked Christianity and basically attacked opposition to liberalism. NPR had this factoid:

The left-wing magazine is known for its biting takedowns. Its past targets include the political right wing, capitalism, Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

The beauty of progressive liberalism, secular humanism and the Democrat Party which defends these engines of destruction in America, is it’s monolithic hypocrisy. Liberals are pathologically dishonest hypocrites whose cry is invariably “It’s NEVER fascist when we do it” because they have conveniently pre-defined themselves as virtuous and their opponents as guilty.

The left have been viciously attacking Christians and Christianity for DECADES. But of course now we shouldn’t have the right to employ the same standards that the left created to attack and undermine us to criticize their fellow “Government-as-God” worshipers in the Muslim religion.

Here is a piece that deliciously exposes this profound hypocrisy (and for the official record let me simply point out the fact that “Piss Christ” was funded by Democrats who had perverted the National Endowment for the Arts into something so vile it is beyond unreal):

As reported through Breitbart, the Associated Press made clear that its official policy is to censor photos of the Prophet Muhammad. Apparently, though, disparaging images of Jesus Christ are acceptable.

The AP told The Daily Beast, “It’s been our policy for years that we refrain from moving deliberately provocative images.” And because of that policy, the cartoons of Muhammad seen in the Charlie Hebdo magazine were deleted from its commercial photo service.

But as was discovered, the infamous “art” photo of a crucifix immersed in urine, known as “Piss Christ,” could be purchased online through the news organization.

If you don’t want to offend Ismam, you shouldn’t elect a damn president who by definition of Islam is the worst kind of infidel because he was raised by his father as a Muslim and now (falsely) claims he’s a Christian.

At this point, the only difference between Democrats, i.e. between DEMOn-possessed bureauCRATS, and Nazis is that the Nazis dressed better. And the scale of evil: Nazis murdered six million Jews and Democrats have murdered SIXTY million innocent babies in their death camp abortion mills.

And we see the hate of secular progressive liberal progressives for freedom and for the rights of others all the time.

Take a gander at this story, for an example for an example of the latest outrage directed against the rights of Christians to believe what thousands of years of the Word of God proclaims to be true, what the entirely of Western Civilization has believed to be true. Because under these antichrist Democrat haters, deviant homosexuals have every right to drag their moral filth into churches and flaunt their lifestyles and the only people guilty of “bigotry” are the people who say in their own houses of worship, “our faith says that’s not right, and is there nowhere we can go to practice our religion?” And NO, there is not in this age just before the Democrat Party worships the beast and takes his mark on their right hands or on their foreheads.

Liberal intellectuals – which means people who have carefully taught themselves to be the stupidest people on the face of the earth – have proclaimed free speech to be the greatest threat to liberalism. Because nobody would ever believe this garbage called liberalism if they had all the facts presented to them – and thus the facts and the truth themselves become the enemy.

If you are a Democrat, you hate freedom and you rabidly despise the freedom of speech to say anything but what you have fascistically proclaimed to be politically correct.

If you are a Democrat, then you are a hypocrite and a liar and a pervert and a murderer. And God has decreed that you will get yours. Because if there is a God, there is a thing called justice. But I know, you want to make those words first a thoughtcrime just like the book 1984 described and ultimately an actual crime. It’s just who you are.

This is the New York Times. And we’re getting journalists who are calling Obama “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation” and “the most secretive White House I’ve ever covered.”

Barack Obama is a genuine FASCIST. I’ve been saying it over and over and over again. And now I can even point to the New York Times for confirmation.

The Democrat Party in general and the Obama presidency in particular have become the party of rabid, cancerous fascism in America.

New York Times reporter James Risen called the Obama administration “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation” on Friday, explaining that the White House seeks to control the flow of information and those who refuse to play along “will be punished.”

Poynter reports that Risen made the remarks while speaking at Sources and Secrets conference — a meeting of journalism , communication and government professionals held in New York City. The foreign policy reporter, who is currently fighting a fierce court battle with the federal government over his protection of a confidential source, warned that press freedom is under serious attack in today’s America.

In a speech kicking off the conference, Risen claimed that the Obama administration wants to “narrow the field of national security reporting” and “create a path for accepted reporting.” Those who stray from that path, he cautioned, “will be punished.”

The result is a “de facto Official Secrets Act,” Risen explained, making the current White House “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation.” And the media has been “too timid” in pushing back against the onslaught.

Some of that timidity was on display at the conference. Jeffrey Toobin, a writer for The New Yorker, denied that any constitutional protections for his profession even existed. “It won’t take me long to alienate everyone in the room,” he declared. “For better or worse, it has been clear there is no journalistic privilege under the First Amendment.”

Robert Litt, the administration’s top lawyer for the national intelligence community, agreed with that statement. At the same conference, he likened reporting on national security leaks to drunk driving, arguing that we ban the practice despite the fact that there isn’t always a victim.

“Not every drunk driver causes a fatal accident,” he explained, “but we ban drunk driving because it increases the risk of accidents. In the same way, we classify information because of the risk of harm, even if no harm actually can be shown in the end from any particular disclosure.”

Do you know what it will take to make liberal “journalists” like Jeffrey Toobin realize that “journalists” actually DO have constitutional freedom to report the truth even when an administration doesn’t like it? A Republican president. Nothing more.

Liberal journalists are not “journalists” at all – at least the overwhelming majority never are and the few who become “journalists” only do so to a small degree; rather, they are overwhelmingly ideological fascist defenders of their Führer’s official propaganda. And they will carry the government’s water unless and until a Republican is elected president – in which case they will rabidly turn on that president.

Let me move on to another topic in the Obama administration. How would you grade this administration, compared to others, when it comes to its relationship with the media.

Well, I would slightly like to interpret the question as “How secretive is this White House?” which I think is the most important question. I would say it is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering, and that includes — I spent 22 years of my career in Washington and covered presidents from President Reagan on up through now, and I was Washington bureau chief of the Times during George W. Bush’s first term.

I dealt directly with the Bush White House when they had concerns that stories we were about to run put the national security under threat. But, you know, they were not pursuing criminal leak investigations. The Obama administration has had seven criminal leak investigations. That is more than twice the number of any previous administration in our history. It’s on a scale never seen before. This is the most secretive White House that, at least as a journalist, I have ever dealt with.

And do you think this comes directly from the president?

I would think that it would have to. I don’t know that, but certainly enough attention has been focused on this issue that, if he departed from the policies of his government, I think we’d know that at this point.

So it makes it more difficult for The New York Times to do its job.

Absolutely.

The White House does?

The White House does. And in the case of specific journalists, I would talk for a minute about Jim Risen, who is one of my most valued colleagues. In 2005, he is the reporter who, along with Eric Lichtblau, broke the story about the NSA’s warrantless eavesdropping, which was, in a way, the first view we had into the world of the NSA’s collection of data and communications. He has had this leak investigation hanging over his head for years now.

Abramson could also be talking about Fox News reporter James Rosen. Obama sicked his rabid law thug Eric Holder on Rosen and literally had Rosen FALSELY called a criminal co-conspirator so the Obama regime could monitor not only Rosen’s calls, but his PARENT’S phone calls.

Note what Abramson points out: every Democrat on earth is a vile, twisted liar and hypocrite. You people DESPISED Bush as an enemy of freedom, et al. AND NOW YOU ARE MINDLESSLY DEFENDING A MAN WHO MAKES GEORGE W. BUSH LOOK LIKE A SNOW WHITE PURE CHOIRBOY.

Barack Obama’s criminal thug abuse of journalism and of the 1st Amendment is frankly stunning. But like cockroaches whose mother eats them, liberals still flock to their messiah roach.

And because Democrats are liars without shame, without honor, without integrity, without decency and absolutely without virtue, they call people who take a principled stand against this tyrant “racists.” Because that’s the kind of fascists that they are.

What is truly interesting is how the left does when their is criticized: they get rabid fast and the fangs come out and it doesn’t matter if you are black or a woman or a black woman or WHAT. Of course it is EVIL for a conservative to attack a black person, or a woman. But you just watch what happens when a black person or a woman or a black woman in any way, shape or form opposes the doctrines of liberalism. You will see naked hate and you will FEEL that hate if you are their target.

And this is nothing compared to what the left did to female journalist Lara Logan. Her crime was daring to report on Obama’s lies in Benghazi. And in her reporting, she made one mistake that should have been caught by CBS (which has a former FBI guy who literally could have caught this with a phone call) and put a man on the record who turned out to have lied about having been in Benghazi. In the minds of liberals, of course, that one error not only obliterated all the GOOD reporting she’d done, but it somehow had a metaphysical power to obliterate ALL journalistic investigation into Benghazi.

The subtitle would have properly read: a warning to any who would dare to challenge the Obama narrative on Benghazi.

Note that hit job was written by a man. And ask yourself if a man had written such a piece so “exposing” a true ideological liberal “journalist” in such blatantly sexist and sexual terms, how would the mainstream media have responded if not in frenzied outrage akin to the Donald Sterling stuff?

Award-winning journalist Sharyl Attkisson finally recently resigned in disgust and is blowing the whistle that Obama administration officials routinely gave her “misinformation” and “false information” and pressured CBS into not airing her stories. The former CBS News correspondent said her investigative pieces died “the death of a thousand cuts” and were much harder to get on the air under Obama than they had ever been under George W. Bush (when she was PRAISED for hard investigative reporting on an administration).

In her recently published memoir, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) relays a chilling anecdote about how Washington really works. In 2009, she was running a congressional panel to oversee the Treasury Department’s bailout of the financial industry, and the new Obama administration was unhappy that she was being as tough on them as she had been on its Republican predecessors. So the president’s top economic advisor, Lawrence H. Summers, took Warren out for a friendly dinner.

“Late in the evening, Larry leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice,” Warren writes. “I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don’t listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access…. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don’t criticize other insiders.”

Warren decided to remain an outsider and went right on flaying then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for failing to help distressed homeowners while he was rescuing big banks. When President Obama decided against nominating Warren to run the new Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, she ran for the Senate instead. And last year, from that seat, she was one of several senators who helped kill Summers’ likely nomination as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

There are those on the inside and there is everybody else. And under thug-tyrant Obama, you’d better shut your mouth the way a Mafia gangster does or you will find yourself on the outside.

When an Obama official like Jay Carney pats the administration on the back for being “the most open administration in history,” you know that they have to frankly be Nazis to even SAY such a ridiculous thing. You have to be a rabid liar to work for a rabid liar like Obama.

“The president is using executive power to do things Congress has refused to do, and that does fit a disturbing pattern of expansion of executive power under President Obama. In many ways, President Obama has fulfilled the dream of an imperial presidency that Richard Nixon strived for. On everything from (the Defense of Marriage Act) to the gaming laws, this is a president who is now functioning as a super legislator. He is effectively negating parts of the criminal code because he disagrees with them. That does go beyond the pale.”

The essence of progressive liberalism is and always has been rabid personal hypocrisy and the assertion that “It’s not fascist when we do what we called you ‘fascist’ for doing when you did a fraction of what we’re doing now.”

I think of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army troops; they died at the rate of nineteen to every one American soldier killed in action. NVA troops would get tattoos that read, “Born in the North to die in the South.” But they kept coming. Because in their nihilist worldview their lives meant nothing and all that mattered was the survival of the State.

That was how the leftists viewed things in World War II (when 20 million Soviets died defending Stalin), it was how they viewed it in North Korea (where 2 million died defending Kim Il-Sung) and it was how the left viewed things in the Vietnam War (where 1.1 million gave their last full measure of communist devotion to the State defending Ho Chi Minh). And it is how leftist journalists view things now when they are willing – frankly eager – to throw themselves on every grenade that could harm their messiah Obama.

Obama is protected an army of cockroaches who will throw their “journalistic objectivity” and even their careers onto whatever grenade would blow up to expose their messiah. And America is doomed because of these traitors to truth and to their profession.

“One of our values at West Liberty is to encourage students to go out and inquire and gather information and look at as many different sources as possible on any side, before you reach your opinion,” said Robin Capehart, president of West Liberty University.

Upset students and parents have taken their concerns to local media, like NEWS9’s news partner Dave Bloomquist at WWVA, who shared an email from a concerned parent with us.

And, of course, it doesn’t matter if it’s right there on her damn syllabus that yes she did tell her students not to use Fox News. Just like it doesn’t matter how many times Obama has been caught red-bloody-handed in one galling and appalling lie after another.

This is why the two fields that most pat themselves on the back for their “openness to the truth” and for “tolerance” – academia and journalism (see here and here for more examples) – are in fact THE most intolerant and biased fields in America. Stephanie Wolfe is merely one of thousands of rabidly intolerant pseudo-intellectuals who are too stupid to understand that they themselves are the very thing they claim to most despise.

When the beast comes, liberal professors and liberal journalists will be the first to worship him and endorse his mark.

There was a scene in the Lord of the Rings in which King Theoden – finally realizing that a vast horde of darkness is coming against him and that his people’s situation is now all but hopeless – asks:

Where is the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing? They have passed like rain on the mountain, like wind in the meadow. The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow. How did it come to this?

I ask that question of America. The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow. In the Middle Earth of Sauron and in the America of Obama. And the only “Return of the King” to complete the LotR trilogy will be the physical return of Christ Jesus as King of kings and Lord of lords. And that will occur only after the world has gone through seven literal years of hell on earth otherwise known as the Tribulation.

How did it come to this?

First, liberals are the most intolerant people in America. As you read this article, realize that our crisis stems from profound liberal intolerance. And the worst thing of all about them is the way they continually demonize their opponents as “intolerant” for the speck of intolerance in the conservatives’ eyes when there’s a giant log of intolerance in the liberals’ eyes.

It’s a well-known fact that liberals are more tolerant than conservatives or moderates. Superior liberal tolerance is such a fact that they will scream at you if you dare to disagree or debate them, demand that your advertisers bail on you, and pressure the FCC to get you banned from the airwaves. Does that sound like tolerance to you? A new survey from Pew confirms that liberals are the least tolerant of differing opinions, at least on line (emphasis mine):

Politics can be a sensitive subject and a number of SNS [social networking sites] users have decided to block, unfriend, or hide someone because of their politics or posting activities. In all, 18% of social networking site users have taken one of those steps by doing at least one of the following:

10% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because that person posted too frequently about political subjects

9% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics or issues that they disagreed with or found offensive

8% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they argued about political issues on the site with the user or someone the user knows

5% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics that the user worried would offend other friends

4% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they disagreed with something the user posted about politics

Of course, that means that 82% of SNS users have not taken any steps to ignore or disconnect from someone whose views are different – or have not encountered any views that would prompt such a move.

Liberals are the most likely to have taken each of these steps to block, unfriend, or hide. In all, 28% of liberals have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on SNS because of one of these reasons, compared with 16% of conservatives and 14% of moderates.

Not exactly shocking news for those exposed to them for years, but the respected Pew Research Center has determined that political liberals are far less tolerant of opposing views than regular Americans.

In a new study, the Pew Center for the Internet and American Life Project confirmed what most intelligent Americans had long sensed. That is, whenever they are challenged or confronted on the hollow falsity of their orthodoxy — such as, say, uniting diverse Americans — liberals tend to respond defensively with anger, even trying to shut off or silence critics. (i.e. photo above of President Obama reacting to Boston hecklers.)

The new research found that instead of engaging in civil discourse or debate, fully 16% of liberals admitted to blocking, unfriending or overtly hiding someone on a social networking site because that person expressed views they disagreed with. That’s double the percentage of conservatives and more than twice the percentage of political moderates who behaved like that.

For some full disclosure, I’ve blocked more than a few people on Twitter. I didn’t do it for disagreements, but for being unpleasant about disagreements. I consider Twitter to be a true social network; I don’t hang out with unpleasant people in real life, and so I see no need to do so in virtual life. Twitter is my water cooler, my hangout in slack time between bursts of writing. I’m happy to have a debate, but when it gets insulting, unpleasant, and intellectually dishonest, I take a pass.

Even if that counts in the Pew poll (and I’d argue that it doesn’t), I’d be in a small minority among conservatives — and to be fair, it’s a small minority among liberals too. It’s just that it’s a statistically significant larger minority among liberals. While Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda demand that the government act to silence Rush Limbaugh for challenging their orthodoxy, Forbes’ Dave Serchuk points out the irony, the hypocrisy — and the unintended consequences:

Imagine this scenario: you are a lifelong liberal. You pretty much hate everything Rush Limbaugh stands for, and says. You are really glad that the times have finally seemed to have caught up to him, and that people are outraged by his callous, gross comments. So what do you do next? You do theone thing that will make him a sympathetic figure. You call on the FCC to remove him.

Think this is just not-very-good satire? If only. Nope, I draw from this example because in an opinion piece just published on CNN.com Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, and Robin Morgan did exactly this. In the process they seem to have played into the exact stereotype of the thin-skinned, hypocritical liberal. One who supports the First Amendment and freedom of speech … except for when they don’t.

Here is the lame excuse they offered for why the heavy hand of government sponsored censorship should come down on Limbaugh, a guy who seemed to be doing a pretty good imitation of a man hoist on his own petard anyway.

“Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh’s radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.”

Umm, okay. But isn’t there something called ratings that are a truer indication of what these respective communities already want? And shouldn’t that count the most? Don’t ratings (i.e. “popularity”) in fact tell the FCC just whom the public thinks serves their interest? Whether we like it or not?

Why do they go for the block rather than provide an alternative? Michael Medved says they can’t compete — and need government to intervene:

Limbaugh’s critics seem unable to accept the fact that many of their fellow citizens actually appreciate the opportunity to listen to his opinions on a regular basis, so rather than persuade those poor benighted souls to listen to something else, they mean to take away the broadcast that they enjoy.

Why not try to build an eager new audience for liberal opinion leaders and steal listeners from Rush and the rest of us who host right-leaning shows? How about recruiting the most outrageous and opinionated voices on the left, syndicating their shows in major markets, and promoting these fresh, progressive voices with a catchy moniker like “Air America”?

Oh wait, that’s been tried, starting in 2004 and proceeding (intermittently) till 2010 when chronically low ratings and bankruptcy court performed a belated mercy killing on the ill-fated experiment. It’s true that some of the Air America “stars” ultimately found their way to other opportunities—with Rachel Maddow hosting a successful TV program on MSNBC, and the insufferable Al Franken enjoying an unlikely career in the U.S. Senate.

But attempts to create viable radio alternatives to Rush and other right wingers have never gained traction, so rather than continuing to compete in the open market place, lefties merely yearn to shut down the other side with sponsor boycotts, public pressure or, most obnoxiously, the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Fortunately, Barack Obama has consistently opposed the Fairness Doctrine, but many of the Democratic colleagues have promoted it for years, with Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and—most adamantly—that heroic public servant John Edwards providing support.

Well, it’s not exactly news that the Intolerant Tolerance Hysterics are all about choices that they want to dictate to people, too, even if (or especially if) it involved the use of “an oppressive, invidious authoritarian relic” like the Fairness doctrine. Don’t expect them to understand that irony, Mssrs. Serchuk and Medved, but thank you for pointing it out. They can unfriend and block all they want on social networking, because those are personal choices not to listen to differing opinions, and every American has that choice. The problem is when they want government to unfriend and block so that no one has that choice — and that’s the kind of intolerance that’s much more dangerous than humorous.

Don’t worry, kids at home. Liberals say that conservatives are intolerant; and if anybody else disagrees with liberals, well, those people are all intolerant, too. And according to liberals – who are the high priests of tolerance – it is perfectly okay to be tolerant and even fascist to intolerant people.

You need to understand how we got to be in such a cultural mess, where 88% of Americans think one way but the 12% who think practically opposite the majority have been able to pretty much make up all the rules. And our society is about to collapse because their rules are evil and frankly fascist to go along with failed.

Let us return to the main point: the secret for the collapse that will plunge us into a collapse unlike ever seen in history is liberal fascist intolerance.

I have come to believe that we are in the last days before the Tribulation and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Based on that view, I understand that God prophetically warned man in His Word that as we neared the end, man would increasingly turn away from God and fall into the errors that He warned us about. I also understand that the same God who told us it would happen 2,000 years ago and beyond is in control, and is allowing the last days to finally come upon the world. I’ll say that from the outset.

I’m talking to a lot of Christians who have used the word “despair” to describe how they feel about the way America is going. They somehow felt the world would just keep getting better and better and of course the exact opposite is happening. And I want you to understand that, for me, Bible prophecy is a great comfort. Again, I see so many signs that God predicted as a sign the last days were coming to pass and it makes me all the more certain and confident in my faith in God. The U.S. is now over $225 trillion in actual debt when you add in the unfunded mandates of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. It is growing by about one trillion dollars every single month. And you ought to be able to see the signs that if we fall down we will NEVER get back on our feet the way we did in the years following the Great Depression (recognizing that FDR stalled that recovery by seven years according to economists) with his failed liberal policies. We were the most productive nation on earth at that time in terms of manufacturing; we were a creditor nation rather than a debtor nation at that time; our citizens were NOT consuming mass welfare the way we overwhelmingly are now, nor would they have stood for the kind of sloth that passes for normalcy today; and we had just won a world war and were frankly the only economy on earth that hadn’t been destroyed. When we fall now – and we WILL fall in the next twenty years – we will shatter into pieces and those pieces will never be reconstituted. America will be a relatively insignificant banana republic or group of banana republics. The day our economy crashes we will lose the status that has allowed us to accumulate such a super massive debt – our status as the world’s reserve currency – and it will all be over for us.

America isn’t mentioned in Bible prophecy. All the other major nations and regions – such as Russia, Europe and Asia ARE mentioned. America has largely already guaranteed that it simply will not matter in the coming years. We had a vote and literally determined to follow the path of the Dodo bird to certain extinction. There are famously nine stages of civilization. Last year we were in the seventh, but this election put us over the top of number eight – we voted for entitlements and to become a dependency-based society. In our final age, bondage will mean bondage of the very worst kind: bondage to the coming Antichrist.

I neither take comfort nor rejoice in that sad, tragic and pathetic end for America. I rejoice and take comfort in the fact that God has a plan for His people – and I am one of His people. I need neither weep nor worry. My treasure is in heaven and I don’t have to fear how much Obama or the beast who will succeed him will take away on earth.

I have another home to go to – and it will be a far grander land than this one ever was even in its brightest day of promise. And frankly, my faith in the next land (Heaven) grows stronger even as this one (America) grows weaker and weaker.

What I’m saying is that when it comes to journalism and modern media, you cannot say that conservatives ever “lost control” over these institutions – because we never had any control over them to begin with. They were never anything other than secular humanist and liberal progressive in orientation. And all it took was for the technology to become sufficiently powerful and all-encompassing that their domination of the media would translate to their being able to dictate to mass culture what to think and what to believe. And here we are.

Then what turned out to be a Faustian bargain was struck. Government took over the education system, ostensibly allowing the churches and denominations to pursue other noble work such as the mission fields. It didn’t take long for the same government that had protected human slavery and created the Trail of Tears to begin systematically removing Scripture, God and prayer from the classrooms and thus from the children of each successive generation’s minds.

Christians stepped away from the work of education that they had historically devoted themselves to and began to put the overwhelming majority of their funds into their churches and their missionaries. Meanwhile, liberals began to place virtually all of their funds into the universities and thus began to increasingly shape the curricula.

Ultimately, as a result, the Christians who began the universities and schools found themselves completely shut out of their own progeny.

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

“What’s most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field,” said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. “There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.” […]

Rothman sees the findings as evidence of “possible discrimination” against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, “the most likely conclusion” is that “being conservative counts against you,” he said. “It doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve observed it happening.” The study, however, describes this finding as “preliminary.”

Because liberals are in fact the most intolerant people. Once they took over the universities, they made very certain that they would never lose that control by making certain that conservative faculty would be systematically denied tenure and purged out.

That was our strike two for us. Liberals got into the education system and then barricaded the door behind them.

By the way, the two fields of academia liberals most hijacked were the fields of education and law. They trained up the teachers and the lawyers who would be able to indoctrinate their students and more lawyers who would be able to basically make the Constitution an infinitely malleable document that basically means whatever liberals think it means. By taking over education, liberals were able to introduce increasingly and frankly wildly failed teaching methodologies that brainwashed kids into liberalism without bothering to teach them reading, writing, arithmetic and history. Our government school system has completely broken down and failed because liberals turned education into indoctrination. And what is even worse, the more liberal teaching methodologies fail, the more liberals exploit their failure to usher in even WORSE methodologies. It has become a vicious circle.

Strike three for conservatives and for the United States of America was when liberals seized control of the government. They didn’t do it by winning elections; they did it by stacking the government employees with leftwing union thuggery.

FDR said that government employee unions were unAmerican. And of course he was right. But as far to the left as FDR was in the 1930s and 1940s, he didn’t even begin to hold a candle to just how radically far the Democrat Party would go to to undermine the United States of America. FDR said:

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. … Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

Unions are completely dead in America in the private sector, where they have killed jobs and crushed entire industries. But they dominate government employees. And if Mitt Romney and Republicans were to have won the election, they would not have been able to significantly change the way government “works” (in quotes because in the vast majority of respects, government doesn’t “work” at all). That is because virtually every level and layer of government “service” is as dominate by liberals as the kitchen floor of a filthy house is dominated by cockroaches.

You’ve got the government as an entity unto itself whose primary purpose is to create more government, more government jobs and more government workers with more lavish government pensions and benefits that are borne on the backs of the taxpayer.

The aim of the Democrat Party and the aim of the government unions is identical: to explode the size and power of government and to make government employees an elite, privileged class of masters over the rest of society. Their collective goal is to attain government power that allows them to dominate forever by being able to be able to pick the winners and losers and the victims and villains of society.

And they have largely attained that power. Once a government bureaucracy is created, it can never be undone; the liberals who own government by what FDR said was an immoral tactic have never allowed it and WILL never allow it.

There’s a reason for this that goes to what I said above about how Christians trained their people to go into the mission field and liberals trained their people to go into government: and that is, for liberals, serving government is tantamount and in fact even greater than serving God. Liberals have simply flooded government and there is no practical way to purge the influence that even FDR said was illegitimately obtained.

There are other reasons that our culture became toxic and doomed, of course.

“Political correctness” is a huge factor.

Political correctness is not just an attempt to make people feel better. It’s a vast, coordinated effort on the part of the secular humanist, socialist left to change Western culture as we know it by using rhetoric to redefine it. Early Marxists in Russia designed this game plan long ago and liberals continue to execute the tactic today: to control the argument by controlling the “acceptable” language. Those with radical agendas understand the game plan and are taking advantage of an oversensitive and frankly overly gullible public.

With the “news” media, with academia and with government at their beck and call, to go along with liberal Hollywood culture, it was easy to tell people what to think.

Liberals have used boycotts to devastating effect; while conservatives say boycotts are wrong and refuse to call for them. The result of this disparity is that our businesses are vulnerable and exposed to incredible pressure from the left, while liberal businesses are completely safe.

I think of two recent examples of how the difference between liberalism and conservatism works in the form of two athletes.

Phil Mickelson “sinned” by saying that the tax burden that Democrats were demanding he pay – basically 63 percent of everything he makes – was far too high, and that he was fleeing the Socialist Republic of California as a result. Do you think it’s unreasonable for Mickelson to say that he disagrees that Obama is 63 percent responsible for his success and that he’s only at most 37 percent responsible for his success? This gets us right back to Obama’s, “you didn’t build that, government did” argument. Mickelson was so viciously demonized that he went out something like four times to mea culpa and say he was terribly wrong to say stuff like that. On my count he came out four separate times begging people to please quit hating him for believing he had a right to express his views in Amerikkka.

The second recent example is San Francisco 49er player Chris Culliver, who expressed his opinion that he would not personally feel comfortable having an open homosexual player on the team. And of course, he was quickly broken as liberals demanded he literally be fired for expressing his views.

How many celebrities have been celebrated and adored by the liberal media culture for saying that celebrities should “pay their fair share” with high taxes and that homosexuality is so wonderful it’s even better than sliced bread? Were they forced to do a perp walk and apologize for their remarks? Not a chance.

You see, here’s the difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives believe that people – even liberals – have a right to express their views and beliefs. Conservatives believe that our nation with its freedoms and liberty should not persecute people merely for expressing a viewpoint that they disagree with. Liberals, on the other hand, are fascists who brutally and viciously attack anyone who doesn’t bow down to their agenda. You do NOThave the freedom of self-expression if you use that freedom to say something that liberals don’t like. They will come after you with stunning hatred if you try to do so.

Liberals are people who routinely shout down everyone with whom they disagree. You do not have the right to say anything that offends them. They will simply come after you in full-fledged fascisti mode.

Genuine tolerance is a weapon that liberals have turned against conservatives. As liberal activist Saul Alinsky – who devoted his book to Satan – said:

“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.”

And of course liberals like Al Gore have no “book of rules” to have to live up to. They can preach radical environmentalism and demonize oil for years. They can say that people ought to pay their “fair share” of taxes. And then – like Al Gore – they can sell out to a terrorist “journalism” network funded entirely by oil money and try to structure the deal so they don’t have to pay Obama’s sky-high tax rates. But because they always parroted the liberal vision – no matter how hypocritically – they’re on hallowed ground with the vast majority of the propaganda machine a.k.a. journalism in America.

Liberals are currently decrying guns, because everybody knows that human beings are merely farm animals incapable of exercising personal responsibility or self-restraint. Guns must be taken away from the law-abiding even if it makes them utterly helpless in a deteriorating society because that’s the only solution that liberals will allow. I submit that there aren’t too many guns; there are too many abortions. There aren’t to many guns; there’s too much pornography. There aren’t too many guns; there’s too little respect for the dignity of human life that the abortion culture and the pornography culture that liberals fought so hard to institute guarantees. There aren’t too many guns; there’s too much lawless disregard for justice that liberals (the ACLU being your classic example) have produced throughout our legal culture.

We kicked God’s butt right out of our schools, banned prayer, banned the Ten Commandments with its “Thou shalt not murder” and we’re just astonished that the children who grew up godless in liberal indocrination facilities a.k.a. our public school system would actualize the disgusting hatred of life that liberalism produced in their empty souls.

And now liberals are exploiting the gun violence that their policies produced in the first place to implement their next step in the Stalinist takeover of America.

And that’s why we’ve lost. And why the America we stood for is now basically eradicated.

And those three strikes plus are why America is going to go down and go down hard. King Theoden ultimately won; America is ultimately going to lose and then the beast will come just as God told us would happen. Theoden’s enemies were outside the walls; America’s enemies are very much within.

Famous journalist and radio presenter Sergei Aslanyan has been assaulted late Monday night, Moscow police reported.

According to police, an unknown man called Aslanyan at 11.30 pm and asked him to come out for a talk. As soon as the Aslanyan left his house the man attacked him, hitting the journalist on the head and stabbing him on the chest, neck and an arm, before disappearing.

Aslanyan himself managed to call police and was later hospitalized at a major Moscow clinic where he was operated on. “The patient was brought last night to the operating room, now he is in intensive care,” said at the hospital.

Moscow police initiated an investigation over assault and seized CCTV footage hoping to establish the identity of the attacker.

It is believed the crime may be related to Aslanyan’s work. Newspaper Izvestia suggested it may be connected with provocative remarks by the journalist on religious themes

On May 14 on a live radio show on Radio Mayak, Aslanyan discussed the question of choosing a new car, and used the expression, “from rags to riches,” in the context of a discussion about the biography of the Prophet Muhammad, in a manner which has drawn condemnation from some parts of the Muslim community, with some pro-Islamic media publishing negative articles referring to the remarks.

The imam and the congregation of Kazan Zakaban Mosque and the Tatarstan community wrote a letter to the Prosecutor General of Russia, in which they stated that they were offended by Aslanyan’s comments.

The Islamic community is sensitive about perceived attacks on Islam, and its founder. The 2005 publication in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad led to a wave of protests and threats directed towards the newspaper.

In Russia, the November 2009 murder of Moscow priest Daniil Sysoev, who had been converting Muslims to Christianity, in St. Thomas’ church in southern Moscow has also heightened religious tensions in some sections of the community.

Sergey Aslanyan, who previously worked with liberal radio station Ekho Moskvy, has been with Radio Mayak since 2008, taking part in a range of programs. Radio Mayak confirmed that Aslanyan had been assaulted.

WUERL: This lawsuit isn’t about contraception. It is about religious freedom. Embedded in the mandate is a radically new definition of what institutes a religious community, what constitutes religious ministry — brand new and never fortified in the federal level. That’s what we are arguing about.

The lawsuit said we have every right to serve in this community as we have served for decades and decades. The new definition says you are not really religious if you serve people other than your own and if you hire people other than your own. That wipes out all of the things that we have been doing, all the things that we contribute to the common good — our schools, our health care services, our Catholic charity and even parish soup kitchens and pantries. All that’s wiped out.

WALLACE: Let me pick up on that, because the White House says — the famous accommodation by President Obama, that they changed the mandates so that the insurance companies that you are dealing with, to provide health insurance coverage to your employees have to provide the birth control for free and that the charities and the schools and the hospitals, don’t have to do anything.

WUERL: This is one of the reasons why we say the accommodation didn’t change anything, because so many of our institutions, certainly the archdiocese, is self insured. We are the insurer.

So, when you say, don’t worry, we changed this and only the insurer has to pay. And we are the insurer, there is no accommodation.

WALLACE: But they’re saying, well, over the next year, we are taking public comment on this. And we will tweak that regulation so that the self insurers will not have to provide the birth control.

WUERL: Last time the government said we are going to hear from you, 200,000 suggestions went in and not one of them was accepted.

What was in the presentation before the request for suggestions was exactly what the administration reported out. By the way, it’s a law. It’s a law right now.

All of this conversation about we’ll find a way around it, that’s conversation. What’s law right now, is that that definition is what we are going to have to live with. And that’s why we went to court, because in the United States, if there is an impasse on the individual rights, we’re going to court and that way you scrape away all of the politics.

WALLACE: I don’t know if you’ve heard about this. But if you haven’t, I’ll inform you. What do you make of the fact that the broadcast network spent grand total of 19 seconds on their evening newscast — 19 seconds — covering the lawsuits by the 43 Catholic organizations; what do you make of that?

WUERL: Well, it is puzzling because they are focusing so much attention on the pope’s butler. It seems to me that somehow they missed the boat. And they missed the story.

And that’s why it is so important that we have a moment like this.

WALLACE: You think it’s political bias on the part of the networks?

[…]

WALLACE: Meanwhile, Mitt Romney came out this week for allowing federal funds to be used by low income parents to send their kids to any public school or even to some private school and parochial schools. You support that idea, don’t you?

WUERL: The idea that money should follow the child, we all pay the taxes. We are all paying taxes for education. Why doesn’t that money follow the parents of the kids?

For example, here, if you live in the District of Columbia, if you are very wealth or have a lot of support, you can send your child to a very exclusive private school. But if you live in this inner city, if you live in some of the poorest neighborhoods, you don’t get an option.

That’s why the Catholic Church is there, that’s why we have our schools in the inner city saying we’ll give you a chance to get a decent education and we’ll pay for it. But wouldn’t it be fair, wouldn’t be just, wouldn’t be really honest if every child a chance at a real, true, academically excellent education. And one way to do that is to let the parents have a choice.

Archbishop Wenski put the essence of the gigantic story that the mainstream media has steadfastly refesued to cover thusly:

“As Catholics, we help people not because they’re Catholic, but because we’re Catholic. And so our schools, our universities, our Catholic charities, organizations, our hospitals admit people regardless of their faith. What the government is saying to us is that then, we’re going to have to operate hospitals for Catholics only?”

What does the mainstream media scream in place of covering such a story from such a perspective?

It’s not enough to say that the media lies. You also need to know how they lie and why they lie.

What stories are the media going to report and what stories are they going to ignore? There’s fertile grounds right there; stories that favor conservatives tend to get ignored or underreported versus stories that favor liberals getting premium coverage – which gets brought up again and again until it enters the public consciousness (e.g. “Read my lips; no new taxes” by George H.W. Bush).

Another way to maintain a bias is to use ideology to select which stories get repeated and which end up in the purge bin. When I find mainstream media articles that help conservatives, I copy and paste it to a Word file; because I have personally encountered hundreds of occasions when such stories get “purged” and I have learned from experience that you have to preserve a record. You can’t merely allude to articles that help out conservatives and insert a link to the source, because that link will lead to nowhere in short order. You’ve got to cite the relevant facts. Versus pro-liberal stories which seem to live on forever.

Then there’s the issue of “fairness” that liberals invariably like to talk about – but never actually live out in their own lives and careers. Fox News is routinely derided for it’s “fair and balanced” slogan. But the fact of the matter is that Fox News IS fair and balanced when compared to any other news outlets; they allow liberals to have a substantial representation whereas the other networks allow virtually no conservative representation.

I still remember getting into an argument with a local news reporter who defended media exclusion of conservative ideas by comparing the debate to round earth versus flat earth. With of course the “flat earth” view being held by conservatives. And on this characterization, it is simply wrong to give coverage to the flat earth view. So it wasn’t bias the media was showing in ignoring conservative positions, but simple intelligence.

It is for that reason that liberals such as John Kerry have publicly said that the media has a responsibility to NOT give equal time to conservatives:

SEN. JOHN KERRY: “And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it’s exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual.”

“It doesn’t deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what’s real, of who’s accountable, of who is not accountable, of who’s real, who isn’t, who’s serious, who isn’t?”

The problem is that a whopping load of journalists agree with this view.

When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington. Some surveys have found that more than 80 percent of the Beltway press corps votes Democratic.

Polling of MSM journalists showed they voted 9-1 in favor of Bill Clinton over George H.W. Bush in 1992 and voted in the same margin for John Kerry versus George W. Bush in 2004. No surprise, then, that the Center for Media and Public Affairs found Kerry received 77 percent favorable coverage in 2004 while Bush received 34 percent favorable coverage — quite a chasm, in my view.

Hypothetical question: If Bush had instead received nine out of 10 votes of the MSM in 2004, does anyone really believe Kerry would have garnered that 77 percent favorable coverage compared to Bush’s 34 percent? One did not have to have a Mensa-level IQ in 2008 to ascertain the MSM were virtual cheerleaders for the Obama campaign.

Wouldn’t you like to have that kind of power to delegitimize the opposition and shut them out? Then you should be a journalist, as long as you use your power to target conservatives and help liberals.

One of the other ways that I’ve found that liberal bias reeks out of news stories is when “experts” are used. I swear these reporters will pick up a phone and call fifteen experts until they finally get the “expert opinion” they want.

We recently witnessed this with statements that Obama has repeatedly made – and which the mainstream media has repeatedly reported as fact – about the opinion of “economists.” Obama has routinely said things like:

“…this jobs bill can help guard against another downturn here in America. This isn’t just my belief. This is what independent economists have said. Not just politicians. Not just people in my administration. Independent experts who do this for a living have said that this jobs bill will have a significant effect for our economy and middle-class families all across America. But if we don’t act, the opposite will be true — there will be fewer jobs and weaker growth.”

Where has the barrage of fact checking been – you know, like there would have been if BUSH had said something like that? Or if John Boehner said something like it today?

The same media that would have jumped all over such untrue statements by a Republican have repeatedly allowed Obama to say this crap without any challenge. And that’s the Big Lie strategy that Hitler crafted and our own media propaganda perfected.

Here’s the truth. And grab it while you can because one day you’ll click on the link and you will get the message, “Article no longer available…”:

(AP) WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama gets mediocre marks for his handling of the economy, and Mitt Romney easily outpolls his Republican rivals in an Associated Press survey of economists. […]

Half of the 36 economists who responded to the Dec. 14-20 AP survey rated Obama’s economic policies “fair.” And 13 called them “poor.” Just five of the economists gave the president “good” marks. None rated him as “excellent.”

That’s zero As, five Bs, 18 Cs or Ds and 13 Fs (you know they only had four rather than five “grade” criteria so that it would be impossible to nail down a grade point average. FWIW). That’s a very low D average, friends. But that’s like a 2.2 GPA.

The media depicted Obama as the man who was somehow constantly crowned with a mystical halo of wonderfulness by the “objective” sources such as the AP and Reuters:

John McCain wasn’t quite so fortunate:

Politico had this to say about media “balance” in the coverage of Obama versus McCain:

The Project for Excellence in Journalism’s researchers found that John McCain, over the six weeks since the Republican convention, got four times as many negative stories as positive ones. The study found six out of 10 McCain stories were negative.

What’s more, Obama had more than twice as many positive stories (36 percent) as McCain — and just half the percentage of negative (29 percent).

You call that balanced?

OK, let’s just get this over with: Yes, in the closing weeks of this election, John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting hosed in the press, and at Politico.

And, yes, based on a combined 35 years in the news business we’d take an educated guess — nothing so scientific as a Pew study — that Obama will win the votes of probably 80 percent or more of journalists covering the 2008 election. Most political journalists we know are centrists — instinctually skeptical of ideological zealotry — but with at least a mild liberal tilt to their thinking, particularly on social issues.

So what?

Yeah, so what if the people calling themselves “journalists” are really just a bunch of Nazi Joseph Goebbels wannabes?

Americans have degenerated into a bunch of intellectually and morally stupid herd animals who can be told what to think just as surely as herd animals can be easily led to their own slaughtering. And that’s basically the one and only truth that the mainstream media accurately understands. Which is why you can count on them to keep shoveling manure and calling it “journalism” in this year that will determine whether America has a chance to survive or goes the way of the Dodo bird due to insane spending and the crushing debt that invariably accompanies such insane spending.

The media have been shockingly biased to the left going back to Walter Lippman, whose thoughts on mind-control is summarized as follows:

The intelligent minorities have long understood this to be their function. Walter Lippmann described a “revolution” in “the practice of democracy” as “the manufacture of consent” has become “a self-conscious art and a regular organ of popular government.” This is a natural development when public opinion cannot be trusted: “In the absence of institutions and education by which the environment is so successfully reported that the realities of public life stand out very sharply against self-centered opinion, the common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely, and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality,” and are thus able to perceive “the realities.” These are the men of best quality, who alone are capable of social and economic management.

Not only is the American public of today no more intelligent than was the pre-World War II German public, but any objective evaluation would show that the people who voted for Hitler were FAR better educated and FAR more “enlightened” than we are today.

“Indeed, about one-third of the (half million) officials and leaders of the Nazi Party in 1935 were teachers by profession. Support for National Socialism, extreme nationalism and pan-Germanism was particularly marked among university students and professors (Kolinsky 1974: 87-8). One quarter of the future SS had doctorates, while in the elections to student councils in German universities during the academic year 1930-1 Nazi candidates received 40 per cent or more of the votes cast in fourteen of the eighteen universities for which such data survive, and fifty per cent or more of the votes in nine of them (Kornhauser 1960: 188). It does not necessarily follow that all highly educated people were inherently susceptible to fascism, but students and university professors were very strikingly over-represented within most of the major fascist movements…” [Robert Bideleux and Ian Jeffries, A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change: p. 380].

– just as it profoundly hurts the United States of America today as the same sort of vile people with the same sorts of vile beliefs and attitudes overwhelmingly inhabit our intelligentsia today.

And then realize that it is these same arrogant elitist snobs who dominate our journalism today who both created this climate and oozed out of it like the slime they are.

The media have done the same thing that the universities have done; it is a trick the left has long practiced: demand to be included in the interest of tolerance, or fairness, or rights, or what have you, obtain a foothold in an institution – and then slam the door shut in the faces of everyone they disagree with. Because whether you’re talking about university faculty or journalists, it’s the same story: good luck getting a job if you are a conservative.

And then realize that these people have incredible power and influence over what the people think, even as they believe they have not only the right but the duty to intentionally shape what the unwashed masses think in the name of “objective journalism.”

I keep saying over and over again that the beast is coming. And there are two things to say about that: 1) the beast will be a big government leader who will unite the world exactly as liberals have always dreamed about; and 2) the same liberals who are the loudest in their unbelief of the coming last days will be the very same ones who will one day most ardently worship that beast (Revelation 13:7-8).

There was a particularly vicious leftwing assault by leftwing rag The Rolling Stone. The only time I ever hear anything about Rolling Stone Magazine is when they do something particularly vile, because on their best day they are still vile and so why read them? Their last infamous hit piece (on General Stanley McChrystal) was also filled with fraud. But what can you say? Liberals are people who swim in an ocean of lies; and why should they be troubled when the people they trust to lie to them turn out to be dishonest???

There are such lines in the Rolling Stone piece as “Bachmann is a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions.” I don’t need to read further than that. It was a toxic, rabid hit piece by toxic, rabid secular humanist liberals.

But let us consider the “standards” of journalism that these people follow. Let us consider who the REAL religious zealots whose brains are raging electrical storms of demonic visions and paranoid delusions are. Let us consider who should have the last laugh, and who should be fired as disgraces:

It’s been a few months since we’ve had ourselves a good-old plagiarism incident to get riled up about. But thanks to Rolling Stone, our sleepy summer Friday just got a bit more scandalous!

The magazine is taking some heat today for lifting quotes in Matt Taibbi’s hit piece on Minnesota’s 2012 Tea Party hopeful Michele Bachmann.

In the story, posted online Wednesday, Taibbi borrows heavily from a 2006 profile of Bachmann by G.R. Anderson, a former Minneapolis City Pages reporter who now teaches journalism at the University of Minnesota. The thin sourcing, as Abe Sauer argues over at The Awl, is part of a “parade of uncredited use of material” from local blogs and reporters who “have dogged Bachmann for years now.”

But the larger issue for journalism’s ethical watchdogs concerns the several unattributed quotes Sauer spotted in Taibbi’s piece, which Rolling Stone executive editor Eric Bates explained away by saying he’d cut out the attributions due to “space concerns” and that he would “get some links included in the story online.”

At least one plagiarism “expert” doesn’t buy Bates’ logic.

“Attribution is the last thing an editor should cut!!!!” Jack Shafer, who is known to grill copy-stealers in his media column for Slate (and who used to edit two alt-weeklies similar to City Pages), told The Cutline via email. “How big was the art hole on that piece? Huge, I’ll bet.”

Shafer added: “If an editor deletes attribution, can the writer be called a plagiarist? I don’t think so. Is that what happened? If Taibbi approved the deletions, it’s another question.”

We emailed Taibbi, who is no stranger to press controversies, with a request for comment and will update this if we hear back.

UPDATE 4 p.m. “I did in fact refer to the City Pages piece in the draft I submitted,” Taibbi told The Cutline. “I did not see that those attributions had been removed. I grew up in alternative newspapers and have been in the position the City Pages reporter is in, so I’m sympathetic. They did good work in that piece and deserve to be credited. But you should know also that this isn’t plagiarism–it’s not even an allegation of plagiarism. It’s an attribution issue.”

In the meantime, Anderson is giving Rolling Stone the benefit of the doubt, although he didn’t let them off the hook entirely.

“I would not consider what the Rolling Stone [piece] contained in it to be plagiarism,” Anderson told City Pages. “What I will say, as a graduate of the Columbia J-School, and an adjunct at the University of Minnesota J-School, I do know that if a student handed in a story with that particular lack of sourcing, not only would I give it an ‘F,’ I would probably put that student on academic fraud.”

You can check out a side-by-side comparison of the two Bachmann profiles over at The Awl.

What is particularly ironic is the use of an image of Michelle Bachmann as holy warrior, gripping the Bible in one hand and a sword dripping in blood in the other as a bloody slaughter continues unabated in the background. It’s an image that is intended to summon the most grisly spectre of the Crusades, of course.

At the worst of the Crusades, the “Christian warriors” were given Absolution for their sins for taking part in the Holy War. You could literally get away with murder. And too many did just that (at least until they found out the hard way that the Pope’s absolution didn’t give them absolution from a just and holy God).

Now, let us consider the irony of the “Absolution” given by the left. Women are sacred cows (now watch me get attacked as calling women “cows”) in liberalism. You do not DARE attack women. Unless they are conservative women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. And then liberals are given total Absolution to attack them as women, as wives, as mothers, as sexual beings, as anything that smears them and degrades them. And they have absolution to do it; no women’s group will come after them. Their sins are pardoned.

Call it a leftwing Crusade; better yet, call it a leftwing jihad. “Kill thee all the enemies of liberalism. Nullus Dues lo volt! [No God wills it!]. Thous hast absolution to murder thine opponents by any means necessary!” And off these “journalists” (or JournoLists) go to do their demonic bidding.

A similar case of such liberal Absolution just occurred with Jon Stewart, who mocked black conservative Herman Cain in an obviously racial and racist manner using his Amos and Andy voice. It’s fine; a Jon Stewart liberal can openly racially mock a black man, provided that black man is a conservative. It’s no different than the most cynical criticism of Pope Pius in the Crusades, who said it was okay to murder as long as you were murdering a Muslim.

I would love nothing more than to have all the Western “journalists” who have played these games grabbed up and taken to a country governed by Islam and watch the look on their formerly smug faces as they were tortured and killed one after another. Until that day, they will continue to serve as useful idiots for communism and terrorism and pretty much every other “ism” that is eroding Western Culture from within.

Add that abject hypocrisy of the left to the fact that for a writer anything resembling plagiarism is the greatest sin imaginable, and you get to see just how utterly vile these people are. They have no honor, no integrity, no decency. Period.

And then we compare the sheer number of plagiarism cases at leftwing papers such as the New York Times (I’ll just drop a couple of names like Jayson Blair and Maureen Dowd and Zachery Kouwe) to conservative papers like the Wall Street Journal, and you see which side simply has no honor, integrity, or decency at all. But what should we expect from such a rabid little bunch of Goebbels? Honesty?

It is also interesting to add that the Crusaders were in fact responding to CENTURIES of Muslim aggression. While many of the monstrous acts that occurred on both sides could never be justified, “the Crusades” themselves were quite justifiable. I make mention of this because the left continues to do to the Crusades what they are doing even today; take the side of the aggressive vicious murderers against Western Culture. And when you look at a major rundown of major plagiarism cases in journalism, it’s the leftwing names like the Washington Post and the Boston Globe and ESPN rather than Fox News.

When America is sufficiently toxic and ripe for judgment, it listens to lies and the bad people who tell those lies and votes for Democrats. That’s basically where we seem to be now.